Neto, Manoel Galvão

Abstract Background: With over 1 billion individuals affected globally, obesity and obesity related diseases is now a leading cause of death. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) has emerged as a cornerstone intervention for severe obesity and its associated comorbidities. Despite its efficacy, postoperative care and follow-up after MBS remains highly variable worldwide. Objective: The PARTNER study aimed to evaluate global clinical practices in the postoperative management following MBS by surveying multidisciplinary healthcare professionals . Methods: This study was an international online survey conducted between October 2024 and January 2025. A multidisciplinary team developed the questionnaire based on existing literature and international guidelines. The survey assessed five domains: follow-up care, postoperative treatment, dietary management, patient support, and measurement of surgical outcomes. Responses were analysed descriptively. Results: A total of 262 responses were received from 62 countries. Most respondents were bariatric surgeons (72.1%) working in public healthcare systems (73.3%). While 78.7% reported conducting three-month postoperative reviews, only 23.7% offered indefinite follow-up. Hybrid models of care (virtual and in-person) were common (56.9%). VTE prophylaxis and postoperative PPI use were recommended by 64.1% and 84.3% respectively. Nearly all respondents (98.1%) provided dietary advice, with protein and micronutrient supplementation widely endorsed. Only 56.1% routinely referred patients for psychological follow-up. Definitions of surgical success and failure varied widely, with inconsistent objective outcome measures. Conclusion: The PARTNER study reveals significant international variation in postoperative management practices following MBS. These findings underscore the need for more standardized, evidence-based guidelines to improve long-term outcomes and equity of care worldwide.

SummaryGlobal obesity rates have risen dramatically, now exceeding deaths from starvation. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), initially for severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m2), is performed globally over 500 000 times annually, offering significant metabolic benefits beyond weight loss. However, varying eligibility criteria globally impact patient care and healthcare resources. Updated in 2022, ASMBS and IFSO guidelines aim to standardise MBS indications, reflecting current understanding and emphasising comprehensive preoperative assessments. Yet, clinical variability persists, necessitating consensus‐based recommendations. This modified Delphi study engaged 45 global experts to establish consensus on perioperative management in MBS. Experts selected from bariatric societies possessed expertise in MBS and participated in a two‐round Delphi protocol. Consensus was achieved on 90 of 169 statements (53.3%), encompassing multidisciplinary team composition, patient selection criteria, preoperative testing, and referral pathways. The agreement highlighted the critical role of comprehensive preoperative assessments and the integration of healthcare professionals in MBS. These findings offer essential insights to standardise perioperative practices and advocate for evidence‐based guidelines in MBS globally. The study underscores the need for unified protocols to optimise outcomes and guide future research in MBS.

Background and Aim: Despite widespread adoption and encouraging results seen over the last 5 years, no consensus exists regarding the endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) technique, training, or preprocedure and postprocedure management of the patient. The aim of our survey was to assess practice trends and preferences of bariatric endoscopists with respect to ESG. Methods: Using a digital platform, we conducted a worldwide survey by emailing a link with an electronic questionnaire to 1200 bariatric endoscopists trained to perform endoscopic suturing using the Apollo Overstitch suturing device (Apollo Endosurgery). Results: We received 221 responses that were included in the analysis. Fifty-one responders (36.4%) required 1 to 10 procedures, and 37 (26.4%) needed 11 to 20 procedures to become proficient at ESG. Ninety-six (68.6%) stated that lower body mass index thresholds should be adopted for Asian and Arab patients. There was no consensus on the ideal number of sutures, with 45 (32.1%), 42 (30%), 36 (25.7%), 13 (9.3%), and 4 (2.9%) recommending 4 to 6, 5 to 7, 6 to 8, 7 to 9, and 8 to 12 sutures, respectively. The primary barriers to establishing an endobariatric program were the inability to establish a cash pay model, 77 (95.1%); lack of institutional support, 61 (75.3%); and difficulty in establishing an ambulatory surgical center/hospital to perform ESG, 73 (90.1%). Conclusions: ESG practice trends remain heterogenous among practitioners in regard to indication, technique, and preprocedure and postprocedure management. Specific ESG guidelines are warranted, and this survey will assist in providing the framework for these guidelines to be written.